A must-read article on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

It's worthwhile to learn more about the context surrounding the release of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Army documents by WikiLeaks. To that end, MSNBC.com has crossposted a New York Times article about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Mr. Assange's story is indeed strange. He lives like a paranoid itinerant, moving from place to place, always convinced that his life is in danger. The article makes it clear that he is losing support even among his friends and colleagues:

Much has changed since 2006, when Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, used years of computer hacking and what friends call a near genius I.Q. to establish WikiLeaks, redefining whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally.

Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”

Part of the problem is Mr. Assange's dictatorial style, as illustrated here:

Effectively, as Mr. Assange pursues his fugitive’s life, his leadership is enforced over the Internet. Even remotely, his style is imperious. When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. “I don’t like your tone,” he said, according to a transcript. “If it continues, you’re out.”

Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. “I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,” he said. “If you have a problem with me,” he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit.

In an interview about the exchange, Mr. Snorrason’s conclusion was stark. “He is not in his right mind,” he said. In London, Mr. Assange was dismissive of all those who have criticized him. “These are not consequential people,” he said.

And, of course, there is this issue:

He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life.

Of course, having said all this, I can't say that the release of these documents was a bad thing. Their release can be compared to the illegal leak of the Pentagon Papers, as the article suggests. Its worth remembering exactly what we learned with the release of that top-secret document:

The papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US.  The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign, including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.

It was because of the Pentagon Papers that we truly understood the madness that was the Vietnam War.

The Iraq War was a debacle by any measure, even if it ended with a measure of stability in the country (which is still extremely unsteady). The Afghanistan War is quickly turning into another Iraq War. These are conflicts with unseemly stories that have to come out one way or another. Yes, there is the important issue of putting troop and informants at risk, but it sounds like WikiLeaks people are being quite careful with the release of the Iraq documents. The Pentagon is complaining only because its mistakes are being exposed.

It's also worth watching this CNN interview with Mr. Assange which deals with similar issues. Mr. Assange walks out in the end: